Killing renfields with magic

[Theogony_IX]

I think there may also be an aspect of the debate here related to the use of humans as tools.  In Cold Days

(click to show/hide)

Harry kills a charhound with  bolt of force magic to the head as it closes in on Murphy's chopper.  As the hound goes to clip the back wheel of the bike, Harry sends force into the top of it's head and it breaks its neck when its head hits the ground.  Afterward the Wild Hunt's shadows peel back to show the form of a young man.  Harry killed the young man with magic, and he didn't do it with winter magic. Now, I'm not sure if the laws no longer apply to him simply because he's the Winter Knight or what, but . . .

. . . there may be an argument to be made that when a mortal is turned into a tool through the use of supernatural powers, they no longer count as mortal and thus killing them does not break the laws.  If that applies, then killing a Renfield would not break the laws.

[PirateJack]

(click to show/hide)

I'm of the opinion that Harry did break the Law in that instance, mostly because I don't think the type of magic you're using matters. WoJ has it that everything uses the same magic, they just have different relationships with it, so I see it as the caster being the important part in the equation rather than the type of magic used.

[Quantus]

(click to show/hide)

I'm of the opinion that Harry did break the Law in that instance, mostly because I don't think the type of magic you're using matters. WoJ has it that everything uses the same magic, they just have different relationships with it, so I see it as the caster being the important part in the equation rather than the type of magic used.

You've got that last bit slighting off.  Mortals and Fae, specifically, use the same magic, though with slightly different rules.  Vampires use a completely different energy, the same Death Energy that Necromancer's use, though the learned skills translate.  We have no idea what more obscure beings like Dragons or Rakshasa might use.

As to the rest, I tend to agree with you.  Legally speaking he might have a case, but as far as metaphysical taint I think he is stuck.  For the record I think the same about Sue, though. 

[solbergb]

We don't really understand much about vampire magic because we only have Mr-Unreliable-Narrator Harry to go on, plus whatever he remembered to ask Bob about on camera.

For example, he figured you needed mortal magic to summon outsiders.  Then the Red Court summoned a bunch of them, but only in the Never Never.  So his current theory is "ok, formerly mortal critters can summon outsiders in the never never".  Which may or may not be true.

What we do know is it FEELS the same to Harry as necromancy, but isn't QUITE the same.   Harry's pretty up on necromancy after the Kemmler stuff, but probably doesn't know the precise differences between what vampires do and what a mortal necromancer does.

[Sanctaphrax]

I suspect the Red Court had some human help with those Outsiders, personally.

[solbergb]

Possibly, but it may not have been a renegade wizard doing it in the usual 7th law violating way.  It might have been some duped vanilla mortals doing rituals with guidance from a vampire practitioner, like the Three Porn Wife coven + King Raith summoning He Who Walks Behind.

[PirateJack]

What we do know is it FEELS the same to Harry as necromancy, but isn't QUITE the same.   Harry's pretty up on necromancy after the Kemmler stuff, but probably doesn't know the precise differences between what vampires do and what a mortal necromancer does.

This is of course assuming that necromancy, Red Court magic and all the other brands are fundamentally different rather than being different expressions of the same power. Harry notes regularly in the latest books that the Winter Knight's mantle feels very different to his regular magic, but at the end of the day it's still magic.

I'd compare it to the difference between Summer and Winter magic or Soulfire and Hellfire. Two sides of the same coin, all wrapped up in the neat little package we call magic.

The only kind I would see as fundamentally different would be Outsider magic, because while life and death are intrinsic parts of the universe, They aren't.

[Serack]

I created this topic in an attempt to examine the mechanisms of black magic corruption.

If nothing else it does collect all the WoJ's I know of on the subject as well as some of the stuff from the books

[AstralBlade]

The Laws aren't built like that, I'm afraid. We have Word of Jim that pushing a person off a building with magic is still breaking the Law, because your magic is still involved. It's not a matter of 'this spell isn't meant to be lethal'. It's a matter of 'this spell caused someone to die'.

(click to show/hide)

I haven't read the Bigfoot trilogy, so forgive me if I'm getting this wrong, but the Genoskwa isn't human and doesn't have a soul. That leaves him fair game from a Lawbreaking point of view, same as any other non-White Court non-human. The mechanics don't matter when it comes to this because this is a setting specific aspect.

They are, but not much. Harry only got around it by having the Blackstaff as his grandfather while Molly got very lucky that the Gatekeeper showed up at her trial.

I could go either way on this myself too, because I see Renfields as being little more than the shattered remains of a human being. That said, Rasmussen still had a soul despite being tortured into insanity by Ursiel, so insanity/mental trauma may not be enough.

So I'd probably adjudicate it based on the type of game being played. If you're going for a less serious adventure where the players kick ass and take names, I'd say no Lawbreaker. If it's a more serious game or one focused on horror, I'd say put it out there as an option. If you're a dick, do it and only tell them afterwards.

For the Skin Game reference I think that example was to illustrate

(click to show/hide)

How when Harry used magic to call forth the ice, the ice existed as an actual world object. Now the Genowska had a magic shield that Harry's magic could not penetrate, but using wind magic to propel what was normal shards of ice into the Genowska did penetrate the shield. Because there was no magic involved.

Honestly it's an interesting subject. That being said, I think the magic has to be somehow directed in order to break a Law. For example, wind magic being used to blow someone off a building, the magic is being directed with not only the intent to cause fatal injury but a direct vehicle of said injury.

(click to show/hide)

The Renfield incident doesn't seem to have that. Firstly it was mortal napalm produced by the victims themselves. Secondly , forgive me if I am mistaken but Harry used the shield to push back the fire to defend himself and others. The vehicle or magic driving the intent was one of defense of himself and friends. Now, if he had conjured a gust of wind and killed them, I think it would be different as  the intent is one of harm and the magic is directly being driven with that purpose.

[solbergb]

In some cases the type of magic resistance affects what can be done.  The example in the most recent book might not have worked on Lord Raith or the Scarecrow, as they might have a version that just dissolves any kind of magic, including things created by magic, where the trick Harry pulled could well be based on his analysis of the specific kind of countermagic used by the critter in question in Skin Game.

On a related topic, physical immunity clearly doesn't mean you can't stick aspects on the critters with physical force.  There's evidence of that in the last book too - but it does again depend on the flavor of the immunity.  To pick an easy example, if a demon is immune to fire, you could still perhaps blind it with a bright light or a cloud of smoke - but both maneuvers could be defeated against the wrong kind of demon (a sun demon is unlikely to be affected by bright lights, a smoke-elemental can likely also see through smoke in addition to being immune to fire).